Wild Card

Tuesday 070918
For time:
Row 2K
50 Wall-ball shots, 20 pound ball
Row 1K
35 Wall-ball shots, 20 pound ball
Row 500 meters
20 Wall-ball shots, 20 pound ball
Post time to comments.

It seems unlikely that we will be doing this particular WOD at the box since we only have one rower and no 20lb medicine balls. However, I am certain we can come up with something fun to do instead. I’m sensing kettlebells.

  • Ewen

    Are you kidding me? We _won’t_ be doing a rowing WOD?
    Fine, then I’m sensing my time as Rx’d is 18 minutes. You were right, that was fun!

  • http://www.crossfitnyc.com Tyler Durden

    Ewen you are free to come in and try to beat your 18 minute imaginary time with the rower and 25# medball. Then you can do Diane which you didn’t do yesterday. Lots of fun.

  • michelle

    any of you guys running the nyc marathon?

  • marisela

    allison and i are
    (in theory)

  • marisela

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pI29A1dl_Y&mode=related&search=
    for all those big chested bench press-ers
    think twice before using opened grip

  • http://www.allisonbojarski.blogspot.com Allison

    Yes, M and I are running it IN THEORY.
    Too bad CF is so tantalizing that we’re not exactly super-motivated to run long distances anymore… :)

  • Ewen

    My imaginary self was a bit disappointed with my real self this morning.
    21:10 with 25lb med ball
    Good thing I watched Roni suffer through it first so I knew I had to adjust my strategy. Wall ball with 25 pounds just sucks the life out of you – and gargles, and spits it back in your face. Nothing like that wimpy 8lb ball we’ve been using all this time.

  • http://www.allisonbojarski.blogspot.com Allison

    Coach Glassman asks: “How Fit Are You?”:
    http://www.crossfit.com/journal/library/08_03_How_Fit_Are_You.pdf

  • Hari

    9:25 (PR)
    Sub 185 lbs. HSPU’s 4 inches short of full ROM.

  • Jack Bauer

    You know what Allison I’m not fit at all according to that! Shit who is! Wow insane. Looks like Coach gave me a list for next year’s resolutions.

  • http://www.crossfitnyc.com Tyler Durden

    An oldie but a goodie: An interview with the man behind the fitness.
    http://www.powerathletesmag.com/archives/Girevik/Five/interviewglassman.htm
    “My colleague Mark Spitznagel found a martial version of the ludic fallacy: organized competitive fighting trains the athlete to focus on the game and, in order not to dissipate his concentration, to ignore the possibility of what is not specifically allowed by the rules, such as kicks to the groin, a surprise knife, et cetera. So those who win the gold medal might be precisely those who will be most vulnerable in real life. Likewise, you see people with huge muscles (in black T-shirts) who can impress you in the artificial environment of the gym but are unable to lift a stone.” Nassim Nicholas Taleb

  • Hari

    Regarding that article, Coach gave a lecture on the CrossFit measure of fitness, and as a very brief aside directed at the engineering nerd in the room (me), he proposed a calculus equation that could succintly encompass a complete measure of fitness. I am now inspired to write an article for the CrossFit Journal laying out the concept in clear terms (without the heavy math).
    First research question, if anyone knows the answer: In a world class clean, how much time elapses between when the bar leaves the ground and when the lifter catches it in a full squat?
    (I’m in search of the answer to the question of exactly how much work is done in that interval. The force and the distance is pretty straight forward. I just need an estimate of the time.)
    Basically, the entire article is going to be a coherent explanation of the equation used in the Black Box logo.

  • mike from houston

    Allison, great post. Just running thru some numbers in my head, I wouldn’t even hit the 4 points category on a lot of those…but that is why I’m here!

  • Moon

    Hari – Maybe go to YouTube and check out some people lifting. That could both give you +/- 1 second level and many samples. If you’re lucky, you might find someone doing it in front of a high-speed camera and/or in slow motion.

  • Hari

    Excellent suggestion, Moon. Thanks.

  • Hari

    The time was today’s make up of yesterday’s Diane. (For those who might have thought I was subing a 185 lb wall ball.)

  • http://www.crossfitnyc.com Tyler Durden

    Hari
    I have a The World Class Coaching tapes and they go into some analysis of the physics of the Olympic lifts. They are at the Box. I’ll loan them to you next time you’re there.

  • http://www.crossfitnyc.com Tyler Durden

    Compare the CrossFit tests to the STREND challenge (www.strend.com). Which do you think is a more comprehensive test of overall fitness?

  • Hari

    Thanks for the offer of the tapes, Keith.
    Regarding the STREND Challenge, the answer is easy: Get the result of their best person and then ask that person to do a few CrossFit benchmark workouts. Then take, say, OPT, and have him do the STREND Challenge plus the same CrossFit workouts. My guess is that OPT can do 95% to 105% of their best score and 100% on ours; and their best person can do 100% on their test and maybe 70% on ours.
    To make an analogy to grade point average: Our best people get a A’s in the CrossFit benchmarks and B-plus or A-minus in anyone else’s. Others get A’s in their event, and C’s to F’s in ours. So to extend the analogy, who makes the better student.
    To push the analogy further (perhaps past its limits) CrossFit is the physical equivalent of teaching you how to read, reason, and think critically. Other systems teach you how to memorize a given test in a given topic. Who ends up better prepared? It would depends on whether you are interested in a life of a single test or a life of the mind.

  • ron

    The WOD is painful….. Without Ewen’s encouragement and rowing tips, I would have not finished. 28:30 – I thought the wall ball would be easy, but the rowing destroyed me. My heart rate was out of control……

  • Ewen

    If you look at the Strend results pages, you can’t deny that some of those people are very fit. I like the fact that the exercises are performed in sequence with little rest. I dislike the fact that it’s all upper body strength/endurance and then running. Why no lower body strength/power measurement? Overall, this seems geared towards short middle-distance runners with huge arms, which may sound like a well-rounded athlete, but really isn’t.
    The competition set-up is stringent but kind of gimmicky (lots of “up-down” orders and pressing a button with your nose).
    The CF tests clearly require a higher skill level. This is one of the main reasons why “other people” suck at Crossfit, in my opinion: you can’t just jump in and do clean and jerks or muscle ups out of the blue. But I do think the aerobic endurance aspect is lacking a bit, even if you were to perform all 5 tests in a row.
    We missed this year’s STREND event in Syracuse, but why not look out for the 2008 challenge and crash their party? ;)

  • brett_nyc

    19:59
    used one 25lbs DB for thrusters, kept having fuss with the foot straps on the rower.
    Hari, I would guess less than 1sec from floor to bottom of catch.

  • dan def

    I’m with Ewen on Strend’s lack of leg strength observation. Strend also misses the mark overall core strength. Strend’s focus on shoulder, back and chest strength ingores core strength and leg strength. You need a lot more than a 24 minute 3 mile run to accurately judge core, leg and overall fitness. Assuming Strend’s members could do cleans, thrusters, wall ball, deadlifts, squats, I can’t see Strend’s athletes measuring up to Crossfit athletes on overall fitness.
    I bet most Strend athletes could not do a muscle up.
    I few weeks ago, a video on the main page had Coach Glassman talking about “limitations” of certain athletes. To loosely paraphrase, he stated if you show me someone with a 800 max pound deadlift, and someone witha max 300 pound deadlift, I know thier performance limitations without even meeting them. But show me someone with a 450 pound squat and a 6 minute mile, now I know I’m dealing with a monster.
    Strend seems more specialized in upper body strenght and running rather than overall fitness.

  • http://www.crossfitnyc.com Tyler Durden

    Hari
    I have an animated gif of Dimas doing a snatch. If you count the frames, it takes him about 33 frames from start to finishing the catch overhead. Interestingly, he takes 21 frames to get to full extension, then just a mere 12 to pull himself under the bar into the overhead squat. I assume each frame is the standard 30 frames per second. Although that might be a big assumption. If you were to go frame by frame on a dvd, you could count each frame as 1/30th of a second.
    A clean would take a similar amount of time.

  • Hari

    Keith,
    Excellent data, thanks! Is the gif in a format you can email?
    Now, here is an interesting part. Although the 12/30 of a second when he’s pulling himself under the bar is clearly a critical part to the lift, technically, there is virtually no work being done during that interval. The first (and main) power burst is the 21/30 of a second during which he moves the weight up to the height at which it’s caught. (Do you agree?)
    The (obviously difficult) rest of the event is basically the (very fast) downward half of a squat and then the upward half of an overhead squat, the latter being the smaller (because it’s slower) burst of power.
    The total power generated during the entire lift is the weight of the bar times the change in height of the bar at the top of the lift all divided by the time from start to lockout. (Plus, the work of a single air squat.) Do you agree?
    What is the weight he’s lifting and what do you estimate is the height of the bar when he catches it and then when it stops at final lockout?

  • Ewen

    Hari,
    Although I agree with your general assessment, I wanted to add something. (please correct me if I’m wrong)
    Measuring power from the point of view of bar movement (height delta, weight and time) is a good indicator, but the drop and catch (including any additional downward movement once the bar has been caught) are discounted in this calculation in terms of total effort required by the athlete to execute the lift.
    The drop is active, not passive; any downward movement once the bar is caught is controlled through muscular tension; and the body must generate the forces required to maintain the weight overhead, even though the resulting force vector is null.
    Shouldn’t static and eccentric work be factored in to properly measure a fitness performance?

  • Michael

    Hey all, is the WOD standing as RX’d? That is one I might just be able to use to work back in. If I came for 7pm can I do that?
    BTW, if you want insane fitness, check out the crossfithel (recently posted here) Mutant Level. I think Cyclops/Wolverine et al would flunk.

  • Hari

    Ewen,
    I’m pretty sure that in the absence of movement, there is no physical work. (There is no such thing as “static work,” just “stress.”) If you push against a wall, you will exhaust yourself, but you will do no work. Whether you stand still on your hands or on your feet, you do no work. A gymnast, holding an iron cross does no physical work while motionless.
    On the other hand, if you catch the bar at a given height and then dip six inches before rising, the total distance traveled (in the direction of the force supplied by you) is six inches greater. You’re definitely right about that.
    I’m pretty sure about this, but less than positive, which reminds me of that old joke: Two atoms are walking down the street. The first one says I just lost an electron. The second asks are you sure. The first responds, I’m positive.
    You’re point about the active drop seems right. I’m pretty sure work is done when you move down faster than you would using only the force of gravity. You do work by providing the extra force that moves you through a distance.
    These qustions are excellent, because all these points need to be explained clearly for the article to have any value. Thanks, please keep asking, and don’t assume I know exactly what I’m talking about.
    Finally, your point that the ability to handle physical stress (e.g., hold a handstand) is an indicia of fitness is definitely valid, but that fitness can be actually measured through the ability to perform work. In other words, you can’t get to an iron cross without being able to do a lot of measurable physical work.

  • brett_nyc

    Hari, have you done a wikipedia search or google search, someone out in internetville might have already all this work. I’d actually be surprised if someone hadn’t.

  • Hari

    Brett,
    Good point, thanks.

  • http://www.dammit.com dammit

    as rx’d, 21:55. fun!

  • brett_nyc

    The damper setting on the rower determines how much drag affects the boat…so for a damper setting of 3, which is what I did this wod at, I get more “coasting” at the end of each pull than if it were at 8. I think that’s right, is that right?

  • Ewen

    http://www.conceptii.com/us/training/tools/dragfactor.asp
    From the C2 forums (I think this sums it up well):
    “The higher the drag factor, the more quickly power can be applied.
    The lower the drag factor the more easily the fan keeps it’s pace and the longer it takes to slow between drives.”
    This is essentially what you were saying, but notice I’m talking about the drag factor, not the damper setting. The drag factor can vary quite a bit for the same damper setting (see link).
    As a really vague general rule, most men should set the damper so the drag factor is 100-130, women a bit less. This allows you to row properly and keep your momentum. High drag factors should be reserved for really big dudes and sprints (if at all), or specific training goals.

  • sarena

    Tday WOD fm hell
    200 SDLHP
    50 thrusters
    100 SDLHP
    35 thrusters
    50 SDLHP
    20 thrusters
    31#BB/8kg KB
    30:23
    Great job Adam and Mike! Thanks Coach Mike. I think I will sleep well tnite and perhaps will take the advil b4 bed to avoid the last 3 nites need for a 3am advil boost!

  • massy

    Not that I can even do a snatch even remotely well, I am intrigued by the physics question Hari poses (actually 2 questions):
    1 — is extra force utilized (beyond gravity) to bring the body down below the bar as the bar’s momentum is going up?
    2 — what is the power output for the snatch?
    If we assume that no force is used on the way down (Hari’s original assumption), and the total snatch takes 1.1 sec, as per Keith’s calculation, then for someone like me — 196 lb person (about 80 kg), extended arm height of 92.5 in (about 2.35 m), snatching 60 kg (or 132 lbs) would require
    (60 kg) x (9.8 m/s^2) x 2.35 m = 1,382 Joules
    of energy. Since this work is done in 1.1 seconds, the power is
    1,382 Joules / 1.1 sec = 1,256 watts ~ 1.7 horsepower
    Ewen is right though that some force is required to get under the bar. Even though gravity should explain all of it, there is still work done in getting our bones “out of the way” of gravity. This is somewhat hard to measure, but it probably increases the power output by up to 20% or so.
    This sort of makes sense to me as I heard once that premium lighter weightlifters (< 60 kg bodyweight) can generate about 2,000 watts at maximum output. The Olympic guys can probably do much more.

  • http://www.crossfitnyc.com Tyler Durden

    In the snatch or the clean, the lifter is definitely applying force to move underneath the barbell. You are pulling yourself down and moving considerably faster than gravity. There isn’t a whole lot of upward momentum on a 300lb barbell: it’s a race to get down underneath that bar.
    Since there are several phases to the lift that must be measured: 1) the pulling of the bar from the floor; 2) pulling the lifter under the bar; and 3) standing up with the bar. The easiest way to break it down is: 1) measure the total distance the bar travels: Floor to shoulders (in the clean) or floor to overhead (in the snatch); measure the weight of the bar; 3) measure the weight of the lifter; 4) measure the distance the center of mass of the lifter moves; and 5) calculate the total time of the lift.

  • Hari

    Massy,
    I think we can divide the problem into two separate parts: (1) the movement of the bar, and (2) the movement of the person.
    Assuming the bar moves only upward (i.e, that the bar does not drop from its intermediate height while the lifter goes under it, then the bar travels not from the floor, but from about 6 inches above the floor to its maximum height. That’s the distance.
    The lifter moves his center of gravity from the initial position down about 24 inches then up the same amount.
    I think Keith’s statement of the problem is exactly right. I also think that I’m going to have to settle for getting most of these calculations within 10% Your estimate of about 1.7 horsepower for 1.1 seconds is within 10% of what I’m estimating at this point. It does seem that a world class lifter like Dimas is able to momentarily generate well over 5 horsepower.
    (1 horsepower = 550 foot pounds per second. Moving 550 lbs 6 feet in 1 second is 6 horsepower. I think the contribution from the squat is relatively small compared to this.)

  • massy

    Keith,
    I do believe you when you say that you are applying force to move underneath the barbell, but the nature of that force is extremely difficult to measure, because most of what you’re doing is moving the lower parts of your body “out of the way”. In other words, if you were just a point mass in the air, gravity would suffice to move you down in the times we realistically see during the “down move” part of the snatch. The formula for distance traveled under constant acceleration like gravity is:
    0.5 x 9.8 m/sec^2 x T^2
    where T = time in seconds in acceleration. Since the downward part of the motion took 12/30 frames or 0.4 seconds, the formula becomes:
    0.5 x 9.8 m/sec^2 x (0.4 sec)^2 = 0.78 m or about 2.5 feet.
    Thus, we see that gravitational acceleration BY ITSELF is enough to get your center of mass lower by 2.5 feet in 0.4 seconds.

  • massy

    Keith,
    I do believe you when you say that you are applying force to move underneath the barbell, but the nature of that force is extremely difficult to measure, because most of what you’re doing is moving the lower parts of your body “out of the way”. In other words, if you were just a point mass in the air, gravity would suffice to move you down in the times we realistically see during the “down move” part of the snatch. The formula for distance traveled under constant acceleration like gravity is:
    0.5 x 9.8 m/sec^2 x T^2
    where T = time in seconds in acceleration. Since the downward part of the motion took 12/30 frames or 0.4 seconds, the formula becomes:
    0.5 x 9.8 m/sec^2 x (0.4 sec)^2 = 0.78 m or about 2.5 feet.
    Thus, we see that gravitational acceleration BY ITSELF is enough to get your center of mass lower by 2.5 feet in 0.4 seconds.

  • Kanddexenlyj